Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85

DOI 10.1007/s11625-015-0342-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Optimization of CO2 emissions in the design phases of urban

planning, based on geometric characteristics: a case study
of a low-density urban area in Spain
J. Roldán-Fontana1 • R. Pacheco-Torres1 • E. Jadraque-Gago1 • J. Ordóñez1

Received: 5 March 2015 / Accepted: 17 September 2015 / Published online: 14 October 2015
 Springer Japan 2015

Abstract When environmental impact analysis is inclu- friendly design. The results obtained show that the steel
ded in the design phase of engineering projects, this lowers and concrete used in the building construction stage were
the cost of strategic actions that must be performed to responsible for 30–52 % of all of the CO2 emissions during
minimize possible environmental damage in later project this phase.
phases (Construction Process Stage, Use Stage, and End-
of-Life Stage). In the case of family housing, efforts to Keywords Energy consumption  Building shape  CO2
optimize energy consumption will not be successful if emissions  Life cycle Assessment  Urban planning
initial urban planning stages are not taken into account.
The objective of this research was to use Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) as a method of evaluating the envi- Introduction
ronmental impact of urban planning. For a surface area of
100,000 m2, six housing development alternatives were According to the United Nations, ‘‘sustainable develop-
analyzed for the following housing profiles: (i) single- ment is development that meets the needs of the present
family detached house; (ii) single-family semi-detached without compromising the viability of future generations to
house; and (iii) high-rise apartment buildings of 40, 20, 10, meet their own needs’’ (World Commission on Environ-
and 5 floors. The results for this case study indicated that in ment and Development 1987). Even though the term sus-
the building construction stage, the activities that produced tainable building is frequently used in books and articles, it
the greatest environmental impact were those related to the still lacks a clear definition.
foundation, frame elements, and siding of the buildings. In order to evaluate the environmental impact of
More specifically, these activities were responsible for building constructions, this research used Life Cycle
55–68 % of the CO2 emissions produced during this stage. Assessment (LCA), which can be defined as follows:
In contrast, in the urbanization phase, the most harmful ‘‘Process to evaluate the environmental burdens associ-
activities were linked to earth-moving and paving, which ated with a product, process or activity by identifying and
generated 63–75 % of the emissions in this stage of the quantifying energy and materials used and wastes released
project. Furthermore, this study highlights the importance to the environment; to assess the impact of those energy
of using steel and cement with a low environmental impact and material uses and releases to the environment; and to
as well as of creating green spaces with an environmentally identify and evaluate opportunities to effect environmental
improvements. The assessment includes the entire life
cycle of the product, process or activity, encompassing
Handled by Yoshiyuki Shimoda, Osaka University, Japan. extracting and processing raw materials; manufacturing;
transportation and distribution; use, re-use, maintenance;
& J. Ordóñez recycling; and final disposal’’ (Society of Environmental
javiord@ugr.es
Toxicology and Chemistry 1993).
1
Department of Engineering Construction and Project A more detailed description of how to perform Life
Management, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Cycle Assessment is provided in the ISO 14040 and ISO

123
66 Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85

Table 1 Life cycle stages of a building as proposed in the CEN/TC ecological damage: (i) acidification potential (AP); (ii)
350 Standard abiotic depletion potential (ADP); (iii) ozone layer deple-
Stage Module tion potential (ODP); and (iv) terrestrial ecotoxicity
potential (TETP) (Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic 2012). The
(I) Product stage Raw material supply
environmental damage indicator used in our research was
Transport the level of CO2 emissions in kg. In the construction sector,
Manufacturing various studies focus on LCA as applied to single buildings
(II) Construction Transport (Mithraratne and Vale 2004; Paulsen and Sposto 2013).
Process stage Construction/installation on-site processes Ordóñez and Modi analyzed the geometry of a building and
(III) Use stage Maintenance its relation to the energy demand as measured in CO2
Repair and replacement emissions (Ordóñez and Modi 2011).
Refurbishment The main goal of this research was to optimize energy
Operational energy use: heating, cooling, consumption, as measured in CO2 emissions, in regards to
ventilation, hot water and lighting the building materials used in a housing development. For
Operational water use this purpose, LCA was applied to the building construction
(IV) End-of-life stage Deconstruction process with a focus on the housing profiles and structures
Transport in the housing development project.
Recycling/re-use The manuscript is organized as follows: firstly, an
Disposal overview of previous studies on embodied energy and
carbon emissions of building materials is provided. Sec-
ondly, the methodology is expounded. In consonance with
14044 Standards (European Committee for Standardization urban conditions, a set of six urban solutions is described.
2006a, b). In the case of building construction, the CEN/TC Then, the building materials involved are estimated, and
350 proposes the four stages given in Table 1 (European the carbon emissions associated to each urban solution are
Committee for Standardization 2008). evaluated. After analysis and discussion of the results,
LCA methods have long been used for the environ- some final conclusions are drawn.
mental evaluation of product development processes in
other industries. Although their application to the building Overview on embodied energy and carbon emission
construction sector is fairly recent, numerous studies have of building materials at design stage
been published that incorporate LCA in construction
decision-making (Singh et al. 2011). In recent years, LCA In the wake of increasingly restrictive laws regarding the
has been used mostly to evaluate the production of mate- environmental impact of buildings (European Parliament
rials. However, the development of user-friendly interfaces 2010, 2012), a deeper knowledge of how to reduce the
now facilitates its application to other domains. For embodied energy of construction materials is essential.
example, it can be used to compare various possible Commonly, studies on the environmental impact of
building sites, different projects in an architectural com- buildings focus on operational energy, and may neglect the
petition, architectural and technical solutions for retrofit, embodied energy of the building materials (Perkins et al.
end of life processes, etc. (Peuportier et al. 2013). Singh 2009; Waldron et al. 2013; Davila and Reinhart 2013;
et al. also provides references that applied LCA to the Bardhan 2011; Perkins et al. 2009). A comprehensive
environmental evaluation of building materials, construc- definition of what embodied energy comprises is ‘‘the
tion systems and process evaluation, and databases related energy consumed during the extraction and processing of
to the construction industry (Singh et al. 2011). Currently, raw materials, transportation of the original raw materials,
the traditional model of Life Cycle Analysis is evolving manufacturing of building materials and components and
towards a more comprehensive Life Cycle Sustainability energy use for various processes during the construction
Analysis (LCSA) (Guinée et al. 2011). and demolition of the building’’ (Ding 2004). A more
One of the problems highlighted by different authors detailed discussion of embodied and operational energy is
involves the value or indicator selected to evaluate the given in (Cabeza et al. 2013).
environmental damage produced in the building construc- The management of building materials entails the
tion stage. Various studies focus on the ecological footprint advantage of being under the control of the designer.
or impact of this activity as expressed in kilograms of CO2 Hence, it is a useful tool for reducing environmental
(González and Garcı́a Navarro 2006). For example, Cuél- impact, whereas control during the operating stage is
lar-Franca et al. studied the three most common housing beyond the designeŕs control. Previous research on the
profiles in the U.K. by using the following indicators of embodied energy and CO2 emissions of building materials

123
Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85 67

generally consider isolated buildings (Wen et al. 2014; construction materials at the building construction stage of
Porhin and Adriana 2013; Mercader et al. 2012). In such residential apartments considering different floor areas
cases the design of urban layout is ignored, despite its (Jeong et al. 2012). The quantity distribution of the most
known effect on the quantity of building materials used highly emitting materials and their CO2 emissions were
(Waldron et al. 2013). Urban planning defines the quantity evaluated. Based on LCA, González et al. grouped by
of materials involved to build the necessary networks and chapters and compared, at design stage, the carbon emis-
supply services. Therefore, it makes sense to face the sions of building materials from a low environmental
challenge from an urban scale perspective, considering impact building and a conventional one (González and
different building types. Garcı́a Navarro 2006).
Although little research has been done in this direction Apart from developing more knowledge on the distri-
(World Commission on Environment and Development bution and emissions of materials, recent efforts have been
1987), valuable references should be highlighted. Perkins dedicated to developing new building materials with a
et al. compared the Life Cycle Energy Consumption and lower environmental impact (Cabeza et al. 2013).
emissions of three different housing types: city centre It is evident that considerable efforts have gone into
apartments, inner suburb dwellings and outer suburban quantifying embodied energy and carbon emissions of
dwellings (Perkins et al. 2009). Among the dwellings types building materials at the design or construction stage. Still,
studied, the authors found that inner suburban households the materials necessary for providing a network and service
show a lower embodied energy index. A variation of supply are generally not taken into account, thus over-
33–37 % on the embodied energy is possible depending on looking the effect on the embodied energy and carbon
the case study. emissions associated for different building types and urban
Also in this regard, Waldron et al. developed a layouts. In this regard, the study here presented introduces
methodology for estimating embodied and operation an innovative approach in which: (a) different building
energy use at an urban scale in the design phase (Waldron typologies are considered; and (b) the building materials
et al. 2013). Three urban layouts were considered (high- derived from services and infrastructures necessary for
rise, middle-rise, low-rise) with the same characteristics urbanizing the plot are also considered.
for different building uses, although roads and service
infrastructures were not taken into account. The method-
Methodology
ology was based on innovative software developed by the
Low Carbon Research Institute. The authors pointed out
In the first stage, the housing development and building
the need of a deeper understanding of other elements that
profiles were designed. Then, the frame structures of the
act on the built environment (such as structures, founda-
buildings and the earth-moving for streets were calculated.
tions and services structures), as they account for a large
Also included in the analysis were the networks for water
amount of the embodied energy of the urban
supply, sewage, electricity, gas, and telephone service.
development.
Once this research had determined the construction
Rickwood et al. released the embodied energy rate per
work units in the housing development and the emission
unit of inhabitable area for different high rise buildings
levels produced, a set of indicators were used to evaluate
(Rickwood et al. 2008). Compared to detached houses, the
and compare the environmental impact of the different
minimum embodied energy rate was found in a three- story
alternatives. The stages in this study were the following:
building, yet this rate increases with building height.
Davila et al. performed an evaluation of embodied energy
Stage I
in buildings in three levels: single building geometry;
urban parametric geometry and urban lifecycle analysis
– The set of housing profiles was defined in consonance
(Davila and Reinhart 2013). In each scenario, three dif-
with urban conditions.
ferent façade compositions were evaluated.
– The profiles were characterized and designed for each
Typically, the study of embodied energy of building
type of urban planning.
materials goes hand in hand with the estimation of asso-
ciated carbon emissions. The research by Paulsen et al.
shows a scrutiny of material distribution at the design stage Stage II
(Paulsen and Sposto 2013). An estimation of potentials on
carbon savings is effected for developing more sustainable – The building structures were calculated and the con-
projects for social housing, as part of a governmental ini- struction work units were measured.
tiative. Along the lines of assessing different building – The CO2 emissions were estimated for the work units
types, Jeon et al. looked into CO2 emission embodied from comprising each building type.

123
68 Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85

Fig. 1 Diagram of the housing

development with six
alternatives: single-family
detached house (URB-1);
single-family semi-detached
house (URB-2); eight 5-floor
apartment buildings (URB-3);
four 10-floor apartment
buildings (URB-4); two 20-floor
apartment buildings (URB-5);
and one 40-floor apartment
building (URB-6)

– The installations and civil engineering work were • Land plot located in the city of Granada (Spain) in
calculated for the sample of housing development compliance with city regulations, technical require-
profiles. ments, etc.
– The construction materials corresponding to the land
Figure 1 shows a sketch of the spatial distribution of the
urbanization process were measured and their potential
different urban configurations studied. In compliance with
environmental impact was quantified as CO2 emissions.
existing regulation, a minimum proportion of the plot of
land to be urbanized must be devoted to public uses: leisure
Stage III use ([10 % of total plot area); social use (3 m2 built/per
dwelling), school use (12 m2 floor/per dwelling); sports
– These results gave the curve of the total emissions, installation (6 m2 floor/per dwelling); and commercial use
which represented the environmental impact of the land (1 m2 built/per dwelling) (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y
development and the building construction process as a Urbanismo 1978).
whole. In Fig. 1, different colours represent the proportion of
– This made it possible to obtain the optimal set of the total plot area considered devoted to these uses.
conditions that minimized CO2 emissions in the Buildings (orange colour) occupy different proportion of
construction stage of the housing development. the total plot area, depending on the urban configuration. It
can be seen that in URB-1 and URB-2 (both single-family
This research study evaluated the level of CO2 emissions
solutions) the area occupied by buildings is considerably
for the six housing development profiles, as reflected in
higher than in the other cases.
Stage I, the Product Stage (A1–A3) and also for Stage II,
The baseline data were the following:
the Construction Process Stage (A4–A5). The processes
included in this stage are the following: raw material • Total surface area of the plot: 100,000 m2
supply (A1); transport (A2); manufacturing (A3); transport • Buildable area1: 0.5 m2/m2
(A4); and construction/installation on-site processes (A5). • Parking spaces: 1 per dwelling located on the under-
The results obtained permit the integration of ‘green’ ground levels
strategies during the conceptual design phase of the
The following housing types were designed and calcu-
building project. When such strategies are implemented in
lated: (i) single-family detached house; (ii) single-family
the early stages of a building’s life cycle, their cost is
semi-detached/terraced house; (iii) high-rise apartment
significantly lower than at later stages (Wang et al. 2006).
buildings of 40, 20, 10, and 5 floors. Different configura-
Definition of the shape parameters. Planning, urbaniza-
tions of these building types produced the sample of
tion, and building construction.
housing development profiles that were analyzed in this
For the purposes of our research, the project design
research. Each design had a different number of buildings
conditions for the housing development were the
based on the initial premise that the above-ground built
following:
• Circular-shaped land plot with a green area and/or 1
Buildable area was defined as m2 of roofing divided by m2 of
leisure area at the center of the circle (see Fig. 1) buildable land surface.

123
Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85 69

area was 50,000 m2. The underground surface was not a slab foundation and the structural framework was com-
regarded as housing surface and was used for garage and posed of columns and concrete waffle slabs.
parking spaces. The following profiles were analyzed: The following model was used to calculate the building
frame. The frame was made up of bar-type elements (i.e.,
• URB-1. Housing development of single-family
columns, beams, and floor slabs) as well as finite triangular
detached houses.
elements that model the walls. The stresses on these bar
• URB-2. Housing development with single-family semi-
elements were calculated with a matrix stiffness method.
detached houses.
Accordingly, the relation between the stresses and defor-
• URB-3. Housing development with eight 5-floor high-
mations of the bar elements was assumed to be linear with
rise apartment buildings and one underground level for
six degrees of freedom per node. For each element, there
garage and parking spaces.
was a relation between the stresses acting on it and the
• URB-4. Housing development with four 10-floor high-
displacement, based on the relation, f = K 9 D, where K is
rise apartment buildings and two underground levels
the stiffness matrix of the element, and D is the displace-
for garage and parking spaces.
ment of the nodes. This method was used to formulate and
• URB-5. Housing development with two 20-floor high-
resolve the equation system or stiffness matrix of the
rise apartment buildings and four underground levels
frame, thus obtaining the displacements of the nodes due to
for garage and parking spaces.
the set of loads. The stresses on the nodes could then be
• URB-6. Housing development with one 40-floor high-
obtained, depending on the displacements, {F} =
rise apartment building and eight underground levels
[K] 9 {d}. This calculation was performed with the soft-
for garage and parking spaces.
ware program, CYPECAD (CYPE Ingenieros S.A. 2012).
The design of each of these alternatives was in com- The values of the actions considered for the dimen-
pliance with national and regional laws in Spain for sioning of the frame elements were the following:
urban planning and construction. These regulations are
• Gravity load floor: 1.9 kN/m2 (partition walls: 100 kg/
clearly stated in the Land Act (Ministerio de Vivienda
m2 ? dead loads: 0.9 kN/m2= 1.9 kN/m2).
2008), in the regulations that implement this act (Min-
• Gravity load roof : 2.4 kN/m2 (roofing: 2.4 kN/m2).
isterio de Obras Públicas y Urbanismo 1978) and in the
• Live load: 3.0 kN/m2.
Spanish Technical Building Code (Ministerio de Fomento
• Snow: 1.0 kN/m2.
2003).
• Wind velocity: 26 m/s.
For the case of the apartment building, the floor plan
(Fig. 2c), was the same for all of the high-rise buildings. Once the frame structure had been calculated, the
Consequently, profiles URB-3, URB-4, URB-5, and URB- quantities of steel and concrete per m2 were obtained for
6 only vary in regards to the number of apartment buildings each of the building profiles. Results are plotted in Fig. 3.
as well as to the number of floors and levels above and The vertical left axis indicates the amount of concrete used
below ground. In this manner, the total built surface area in the foundation and frame elements of each housing
(50,000 m2) remains constant. The number of underground profile, expressed in m3 of concrete by each m2 of built
levels was calculated such that there was one parking space area. The dotted line (vertical right axis) plots the amount
per dwelling. of steel involved in those activities (in kg/m2 of built area).
With regards to each housing development profile, This section included a description of the case study of this
Table 2 shows the building characteristics, and Table 3 research. In consonance with urban norms, six different
lists the urban planning features. urbanization layouts were defined, and the floor plan of each is
depicted. Construction systems, building materials and frame
Frame calculation of the buildings calculation are also described. Hence, this section offers an
overview of different urban layouts and their implications for
The foundations and frame elements of buildings are the building design and, consequently, future results.
main source of environmental impact during the buildings’
life cycle. This is due to the fact that the construction Calculation of the emissions due to the construction
materials (mainly steel and concrete) are the highest con- of the buildings
tributors of CO2 emissions (Varun et al. 2012).
Once the floor plan and height of the buildings were The CO2 emissions were calculated with the information
defined, their foundation and structural elements were from different databases that provided the values of the
calculated in order to specify the construction work units. CO2 emissions for the various components of the con-
This made it possible to obtain the amounts of concrete struction work units. Emissions due to operation stage of
(m3) and steel (kg) used. The buildings were designed with the building are not included in this study. Those databases

123
70 Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85

Fig. 2 a–c Floor plan distributions of each of the case study

used as information sources to obtain the CO2 emissions database of the Instituto de Tecnologı́a de la Construcción
were the following: Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) of Catalonia (ITEC 2012). These databases have been
(Hammond and Jones 2011), the Environmental Product previously used in similar studies (Zabalza Bribián et al.
Declaration (EPD) provided by the manufacturers, and the 2009; Solı́s-Guzmán et al. 2013).

123
Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85 71

Table 2 Housing profile characteristics

Profile No. of No. of floors Surface of Surface of Total surface No. of Total No. of Total built
floors below ground building units building units of building buildings dwellings surface above
above (parking) above ground below ground units (m2) per profile per profile ground (m2)
ground (m2) (m2)

Detached 2? tower 1 222.00 85.00 307.00 225 225 50,000.00

Semi-detached 2 1 770.00 374.00 1144.00 65 325 50,000.00
5-floor apt. 5 1 6250.00 1342.00 7592.00 8 60 50,000.00
building
10-floor apt. 10 2 12,500.00 2685.00 15,185.00 4 120 50,000.00
building
20-floor apt. 20 4 25,000.00 5369.00 30,369.00 2 240 50,000.00
building
40-floor apt. 40 8 50,000.00 10,739.00 60,739.00 1 480 50,000.00
building

The profile of the material quantities used varies family housing (detached and semi-detached) shows a
depending on the building case study. A description of major consumption of materials involved in external and
material distribution is included in Table 4. Columns 1 and internal walls (ceramic brick) and claddings (ceramic floor
2 contain the materials that are most commonly used in tile, painting).
abundance (based on total mass), grouped by task (Gon- In global terms, single-family solutions consume more
zález and Garcı́a Navarro 2006). The major materials are: material quantities than do high-rise solutions because a
concrete, steel, wood, ceramic brick, mortar, plaster, nat- higher number of units is needed to cover the area. How-
ural stone, ceramic tile, paintings, insulation materials ever, the effect of a massive structural material requirement
(mineral wool, polythene, bitumen, asphalt sheet) and in very high rise buildings must be considered.
synthetic pipes (PVC and polyethylene). Column 3 The CO2 emissions, as calculated with the information
includes some clarifications on the specific element asses- from the different databases, led us to determine the
sed. The embodied energy of each material by unit (in MJ/ embodied energy for each material and its equivalent CO2
kg) is shown in column 4, and its equivalent in CO2 emissions, based on the type and weight of the material,
emissions (in kgCO2/kg) is included in column 5. including its packaging.
The following columns include the total quantity of each Complex products were decomposed into simple mate-
material (in tonnes) derived in each case study. For com- rials in order to determine their embodied energy and
parative purposes, we give the total material quantities emissions values. Each work unit was composed of mate-
necessary to build all the buildings in each urbanization rials, manpower, and machinery. Table 5 shows the emis-
solution (see Table 3) to build the total considered surface sions (kgCO2) produced during the manufacture of various
area (50,000 m2). construction materials.
The most common materials are concrete, ceramic In the transport and construction phases, the criteria
brick, mortar and ceramic floor tile. Steel, painting and used were those of the CYPE database (CYPE Ingenieros
synthetic pipes must be highlighted due to their high S.A. 2012). It was thus considered that for the A4 module
embodied energy and carbon emission rates. These results in the Construction Process Stage, construction materials
are in accordance with (Paulsen and Sposto 2013; Jeong were transported in diesel-powered trucks with an average
et al. 2012). load and fuel consumption per kilometer and kilogram of
Some differences are appreciable in material distribution the material transported. The values obtained depended on
by building type. In the case of materials involved in the distance travelled and whether the scope was local,
foundations and structure (concrete and steel), there is a regional, national, or international.
noteworthy effect of (a) spatial distribution; and (b) struc- In the case of the A5 module (construction/installation
tural requirements. Although single-family houses do not on-site processes), we considered the embodied energy and
require massive quantities of steel and concrete, the need to emissions produced by the machinery, auxiliary equip-
build a vast number of houses to cover the studied area ment, and waste transportation to the landfill. As an
makes them a high-consuming solution. In the case of high- example, Table 6 shows the construction units necessary
rise buildings, due to foundation requirements, URB-6 (the and the cost (€) of the on-site manufacturing and placement
tallest one) consumes more structural materials. Single- of 1 m3 of concrete foundation slab with a strength of

123
 72

123
Table 3 Urban planning characteristics

Detached (URB-1) S emi-Detached (URB-2) 5-floor building (URB-3) 10-fl. apt. building (URB- 20-fl. apt. building (URB- 40-fl. apt. building (URB-
LAND DIVIS ION CATEGORIES S urface No. of S urface No. of S urface No. of S urface No. of S urface No. of S urface No. of
2 2 2 2 2 2
[m ] dwellings [m ] dwellings [m ] dwellings [m ] dwellings [m ] dwellings [m ] dwellings
Block 1 3,231.08 14 3,231.08 20 10,104.50 120 10,104.50 120 21,077.20 240 43,022.61 480
Block 2 5,219.85 23 5,219.85 30 10,104.50 120 10,104.50 120 21,077.20 240
Block 3 3,407.67 15 3,407.67 25 10,104.50 120 10,104.50 120
Block 4 3,231.08 14 3,231.08 20 10,104.50 120 10,104.50 120
RESIDENTIAL Block 5 5,219.85 23 5,219.85 30
LAND. BASIC UNIT Block 6 3,407.67 15 3,407.67 25
Block 7 3,231.08 14 3,231.08 20
Block 8 5,219.85 23 5,219.85 30

USEFUL LAND
Block 9 3,407.67 15 3,407.67 25
Block 10 3,231.08 14 3,231.08 20
Block 11 5,219.85 23 5,219.85 30
Block 12 3,407.67 15 3,407.67 25
Block 13 4,100.54 17 4,100.54 25
TOTAL RES IDENTIAL LAND US E 51,534.94 225 51,534.94 325 40,418.00 480 40,418.00 480 42,154.40 480 43,022.61 480
Land allotment for commercial use 1,151.10 1,151.10 1,151.10 1,151.10 1,151.10 1,151.10
Allotted Land allotted for social use 1,511.13 1,511.13 1,511.13 1,511.13 1,511.13 1,511.13
M INIM UM

PLANNING OF THE SECTOR

land Land allotted for school use 6,043.59 6,043.59 6,043.59 6,043.59 6,043.59 6,043.59
M ODULES OF
Land allotted for sports installations 4,167.86 4,167.86 4,167.86 4,167.86 4,167.86 4,167.86
RESERVATIONS
FOR ALLOTM ENTS Total Land Allottedl 12,873.68 12,873.68 12,873.68 12,873.68 12,873.68 12,873.68
Leisure space 10,000.37 10,000.37 31,052.56 31,052.56 31,052.56 31,052.56
Total land use for leisure areas 10,000.37 10,000.37 31,052.56 31,052.56 31,052.56 31,052.56
TOTAL LAND RESERVED FOR ALLOTM ENTS 22,874.05 22,874.05 43,926.24 43,926.24 43,926.24 43,926.24
Parking 164 164 385 385 433 427
ROAD SYSTEM
Road 25,591.01 25,591.01 15,655.76 15,655.76 13,919.36 13,051.15

PUBLIC LAND CONCEDED

TOTAL LAND USE FOR THE ROAD NETWORK 25,591.01 25,591.01 15,655.76 15,655.76 13,919.36 13,051.15
CEDED PUBLIC LAND 47,313.96 47,313.96 58,430.90 58,430.90 56,694.50 55,826.29
TOTAL LAND DES IGNATED FOR BUILDING 100,000.00
Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85
Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85 73

Fig. 3 Quantities of concrete and steel in the frame elements of the building profiles

25 N/mm2 and 40.1 kg/m steel reinforcement per m3 of Figure 4 shows the CO2 emissions (kgCO2/m2) for each
concrete. construction work unit category and housing profile. The
After calculating the quantity of the elements in each construction work units were classified in the following
work unit (see Table 4), their emission value was obtained categories: (1) earth-moving; (2) foundations; (3) frame
based on the following criteria: elements; (4) façades; (5) partition walls; (6) installations;
(7) insulation and waterproofing; (8) roofing; (9) siding;
• Emissions produced by the materials as specified by the
(10) signs and equipment; (11) interior development of the
database information.
land plot; and (12) waste management.
• Manpower with no CO2 emissions.
For example, for a 5-floor apartment building, the
• Fuel consumption.
foundations, frame elements, and façades account for
As an example, Table 7 shows the total CO2eq (kg) for 53.1 % of the emissions (see Fig. 5). Not surprisingly,
the manufacture and placing of a foundation slab made of these parts of the building are largely composed of concrete
steel and concrete. and steel. Various authors indicate that work units manu-
Once the CO2 emission values were calculated for the factured with concrete, cement, and steel (i.e., the structure,
work units in each of the previously mentioned categories, frame elements, envelope, and masonry) are the source of
measurements were performed to obtain the total CO2 most of the CO2 emissions during the building construction
emissions (kg CO2/m2) for each of the housing profiles. (González and Garcı́a Navarro 2006; Varun et al. 2012).
The results were the following: (i) single-family house Asif et al. concluded that concrete was responsible for a
(402.73); (ii) single-family semi-detached house (365.77); high percentage of the embodied energy and associated
(iii) 5-floor apartment building (363.58); (iv) 10-floor environmental impacts generated by housing construction
apartment building (376.09); (v) 20-floor apartment (Asif et al. 2007).
building (394.47); and (vi) 40-floor apartment building A more in-depth analysis of the materials in the work
(461.36).2 units shows that the steel required for the structure of the
5-floor apartment building was responsible for 25.06 % of
the total emissions, and that the concrete in the structure
2
These values do not include the emissions from the interior
was responsible for 20.86 %. When 6.85 % from the
development of the land plot. mortar was added to this total, this signified that almost

123
 74

Table 4 Amount of major construction materials required for building each case studied

123
Task Material Specific element Embodied CO2 emissions Quantity (tonnes)
energy by (kgCO2/kg)
unit (MJ/kg) URB-1 URB-2 URB-3 URB-4 URB-5 URB-6

Foundations Concrete Mass concrete for reinforced concrete 1.0578 0.0991 30,942.45 30,714.97 17,266.30 16,740.59 17,661.72 26,239.82
Steel Raw steel and reinforced concrete 35.3239 2.8240 718.88 660.14 410.69 314.20 337.82 876.39
Wood Formwork 3.0447 0.0905 344.80 307.65 62.52 60.43 61.54 145.23
Structure Concrete Reinforced concrete 1.0578 0.0991 20,859.30 29,839.81 22,594.35 32,855.77 34,780.46 35,743.58
Steel Raw steel and reinforced concrete 35.3239 2.8240 811.35 811.59 756.22 1040.76 1328.19 2050.02
Wood Formwork 3.0447 0.0905 117.47 110.98 98.54 101.96 106.82 107.09
External wall Ceramic brick 4.5444 0.3408 9541.48 4743.77 3546.07 3456.08 3414.54 3435.98
Mortar 1.2144 0.1133 3201.98 1678.64 1742.23 1384.81 1286.61 1245.45
Natural stone Stone coping 0.2244 0.0232 107.59 82.27 115.17 104.72 101.41 80.33
Steel Raw steel 35.3239 2.8240 25.10 23.19 20.19 20.19 20.19 20.39
Ceramic wall tile 10.3374 0.7750 7.14 3.55 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.55
Additive Water-repellent additive 99.8158 14.7500 5.85 2.91 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.09
Aluminum Aluminum frame 160.3404 23.5454 4.04 7.57 20.52 16.11 16.11 15.90
Partitions Ceramic brick 4.5444 0.3408 8062.48 3208.32 5240.35 5240.35 5240.35 5240.35
Mortar, plaster 1.2144 0.1133 2543.63 1084.33 1697.42 1697.46 1697.42 1697.42
Claddings Mortar, plaster 1.2144 0.1133 10,063.35 8126.92 7198.41 7979.62 8136.39 7840.37
Ceramic floor tile 10.3374 0.7750 5693.68 5386.11 5173.10 5124.78 4831.42 4831.42
Painting 70.0000 2.9100 140.04 138.80 62.86 62.86 62.89 62.89
Roof Mortar, plaster 1.2144 0.1133 3616.65 4428.71 1774.27 772.24 437.53 220.72
Ceramic floor tile 10.3374 0.7750 1233.92 1509.05 650.82 302.81 148.46 74.23
Ceramic brick 4.5444 0.3408 155.46 189.66 75.76 48.84 19.71 10.03
Insulation Mineral wool Mineral wool insulating 15.2690 1.3909 217.35 281.11 213.45 189.50 185.91 149.19
Polythene 77.0081 11.3952 79.28 91.14 76.24 59.50 55.91 54.94
Bitumen Modified bitumen 10.0700 1.4747 28.50 30.99 15.05 10.48 7.28 5.68
Asphalt sheet Synthetic rubber 44.4167 6.5033 0.70 1.94 1.37 1.24 1.18 1.15
Piping Synthetic PVC pipe General PVC 80.3374 11.8650 56.29 66.06 95.93 101.93 50.97 48.15
Synthetic Low density 77.3367 11.4217 6.85 6.81 10.31 10.46 10.74 11.68
polyethylene pipe
Total 98,585.60 93,536.99 68,922.70 77,702.28 80,006.17 90,213.02
Sources: Inventory of Carbon and Energy (Hammond and Jones 2011), database of the Instituto de Tecnologı́a de la Construcción (ITEC 2012), Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)
Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85
Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85 75

Table 5 Emissions generated by single elements in the construction work units

Materials Density (kg/m3) Embodied Carbon data Unit Carbon data
energy (MJ/kg) (kgCO2/kg) (kgCO2/unit)

Steel 7850 3.81 2.82 kg 2.82

3
Concrete 2340 1.06 0.1 m 231.83
Mortar (M5) 1650 1.58 0.15 m3 242.91
Cement 1880 7.34 0.68 m3 1284.04
Wood (beech) 510 3.04 0.09 m3 46.04
Baked clay 850 4.29 0.32 m.u. 528.27
Sand 1800 0.12 0.01 m3 11.91
Plaster 1200 3.34 0.3 m3 356.38
PVC 1380 80.34 11.86 ml 16.05
Expanded polystyrene 24 101.08 14.92 m2 3.58
Aluminum 2700 160.34 23.55 m2 317.86
Glass 2490 19.34 1.15 m2 11.41
Bitumen 2400 10.07 1.47 m2 3.54
Sources: (Hammond and Jones 2011); ITEC 2012) and the Environmental Product Declaration given by manufacturers
Units: baked clay 1 unit 24 cm 9 11.5 cm 9 7 cm; PVC pipe with a diameter of 200 mm and a thickness of 4.9 mm; expanded polystyrene with
a thickness of 1 cm; aluminum with a thickness of 5 mm; glass with a thickness of 4 mm; bitumen with a thickness of 1 mm

Table 6 Cost of the on-site manufacturing and placement of 1 m3 of foundation slab made of HA-25 concrete and 40.1 kg/m steel rein-
forcement per m3 of concrete
Concept Quantity Unit Cost per unit (€) Total cost (€)

Hard plastic separator for foundations 5.00 unit 0.12 0.60

Corrugated steel bars, UNE-EN 10080 B 500 S, manufactured 40.10 kg 0.89 35.69
with various diameters and placed on site
HA-25/B/20/IIa concrete mixed at a plant and placed 1.05 m3 65.83 69.12
with a concrete bucket skip
Smooth PVC pipe for flow tubes (various diameters) 0.01 m 6.23 0.06
Concrete vibrator (3 m) 0.34 h 4.61 1.58
Skilled construction worker 0.14 h 18.33 2.55
Unskilled laborer 0.14 h 17.08 2.37
Total direct cost 111.97

Table 7 Total CO2eq (kg) for

Amount Unit Emissions in CO2 equivalent (kg)
the manufacture and placing of
a foundation slab made of HA- A1–A2–A3 A4 A5 A1–A2–A3–A4–A5
25 concrete and 40.1 kg steel
per m3 of concrete Materials
Steel 40.10 kg 112.28 1.00
Concrete 2415.00 kg 236.09 3.17
Machinery
Diesel 1.02 dm3 2.79 2.79
Auxiliary 0.02 0.02
Construction wastes
Transport to landfill 25.78 kg 0.08 0.08
3
Total CO2 emissions (kg/m ) 348.37 4.18 2.88 355.43 kg eq CO2/m3

123
76 Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85

Fig. 4 CO2 emissions (kgCO2/m2) for each construction work unit category and housing profile

Fig. 5 Distribution of the CO2

emissions (kgCO2) for a 5-floor
apartment building

half of the CO2 emissions were due to construction mate- CO2 emissions (kg CO2/m2) for each of the housing pro-
rials made with cement and steel. Figure 6 shows the files were obtained (Fig. 4).
emissions generated by the on-site manufacture and plac-
ing of the materials used to build a 5-floor apartment Calculation of the installations within the area
building. of the housing development
In this section, the details of the carbon assessment
procedure were provided. Table 4 depicts material quan- For each of the six housing development alternatives in our
tities for each case study. Differences in material distri- sample (see Fig. 1), we designed a road network as well as
bution across urban configurations can be found. The total the following installations: water supply system, sewage

123
Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85 77

Fig. 6 Distribution of CO2

emissions (kgCO2/m2)
generated by the construction
materials needed for a 5-floor
apartment building

network, electricity grid, telephone system, landscaped for rainwater. The minimum flow speed was 0.5 m/s. The
areas, and watering system. pipeline was buried with at least 50 cm of soil between the
top of the pipe and the ground level. The material for the
Water supply The design of the water supply system was sewage network was the following: concrete piping for
based on a consumption of 350 l/daycap, a point coeffi- diameters greater than or equal to 0.5 m, and PVC piping
cient of 2.4, and four inhabitants per dwelling. In reference for smaller diameters.
to social, school, and commercial areas, the water con- The system was designed to drain both wastewater and
sumption was quantified at 10/liters/m2/day. The water rainwater. The drainage of wastewater was based on 350
supply system also included water hydrants for street L/daycap, a point coefficient of 2.4, and four inhabitants
cleaning (8.3 l/s) as well as water hydrants for fire pro- per dwelling.
tection (16.63 l/s). The calculation of the rainwater flow volume was per-
The material used in the design of the drainage system formed with the rational method, according to the formula
was cast-iron pipe fittings for diameters greater than or (1) (Témez 1991).
equal to 150 mm and high-density polyethylene pipes for Q ¼ C  It  A=3:6 ð1Þ
diameters smaller than 150 mm. The pipes were located at
3
a depth of 1.5 m. Each pipe was placed on 10 cm of where C is runoff coefficient in m /s; It is rain intensity for
bedding material, and the trench filled with material from a ten-year return period, in mm/h, and A is area of the water
the excavation. shed.
The system was calculated with a maximum flow speed The hydraulic calculation of the pipelines was per-
of 2.5 m/s and a minimum flow speed of 0.5 m/s. The formed with the Manning–Strickler formula (2):
minimum pressure was 15 m of water column above the 2 1
V ¼ R  h3  I 2 =n ð2Þ
level of the last frame element of the buildings, and the
maximum pressure was 60 m of water column. Based on where V is mean (m/s); Rh is hydraulic radius (m); I is
these constraints, we designed the network using the hydraulic slope (m/m) and n is the Manning coefficient.
Hardy–Cross method and the formulas of Darcy–Weis-
bach, Hagen–Poiseuille and Colebrook–White to calculate Electricity grid The electricity grid was calculated with
the head losses because of the friction in the pipeline (see the following design parameters3:
appendix A).
3
In each case, the nominal power is specified by the electricity
Sewage network The sewage system was designed with a distribution company in the area. As a reference, the values adopted
maximum slope of 5.0 % and a minimum slope of 0.5 %. were the ones specified by the Spanish electricity company, Endesa S.
A. (Resolution 23-03-2006 of the Directorate General of Industry,
The maximum slope was 3 m/s for wastewater and 5 m/s
Energy, and Mining of Spain D.G.).

123
78 Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85

• Highest line voltage: 20 kV. with a value ranging from 0.6 to 0.9.; and fc is the main-
• Highest voltage for equipment: 36 kV. tenance factor (value ranging from 0.65–0.80).
• Rated lightning impulse withstand voltage: 170 kV
peak. Telephone and gas networks The telecommunications
• Rated power frequency withstand voltage: 70 kV. network was designed to comply with Spanish legislation.6
The cable conduits were polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes
Generally speaking, a rated short-time current of 1 s in
having diameters of 110, 63, and 40 mm.
kA was established for the medium-voltage grid. Similarly,
The design parameters for the gas network were the
the peak value of the maximal short-circuit current was 40
following:
kA. The maximum value of the earth fault current was 300
A or 1000 A per transformer. • Fuel in the network: natural gas.
In medium-voltage lines, the voltage was quantified by • Maximum supply pressure: 0.4 bar. M
calculating the number of transformation centers, taking • Material for the pipeline: HDPE SDR17 1.3/2.
into account the simultaneity of operation and the structure • Space allotted per dwelling: 1.4 m3/h.
of the grid. A simultaneity coefficient of 0.8 was applied to
the sum of the voltage in the transformation centers.4 The
Emissions generated by the construction of the housing
material for the cables was aluminum with standard sec-
development
tions of 150 and 240 mm2 (XLPE and EPR dry insulation).
In power lines with a nominal voltage of 20 kV, the con-
The same procedure used for building construction was
ductor to be installed was 18/30 kV.
applied to the civil engineering work. Similarly as done for
In the electricity grid, a nominal power in the low-
buildings in the previous section, Table 8 summarizes the
voltage grid of 230/400 V corresponds to a building elec-
profile of quantity materials involved in the urbanization
trification of 9200 W. The total power of the houses was
work in each case study. Columns 1 and 2 contains the
obtained by multiplying the mean value of the maximum
materials that are most commonly used in abundance
power in each dwelling by the simultaneity coefficient,
(based on total mass), grouped by task. Those major
Cs.5
materials are: aggregates, concrete, cast iron, brick, mortar,
Table 3 shows the space allotted for different uses in the
galvanized steel, PVC, precast, aluminum, polyethylene,
urban planning regulations. The electrical power projected
cement, bitumen, stone, ceramic paver, wood. Column 3
for each use is the following: school equipment, 5 kW/
includes some clarifications on the specific element asses-
100 m2; sports equipment, 3 kW/100 m2; social equip-
sed. The embodied energy of each material by unit (in MJ/
ment, 4 kW/100 m2; commercial use, 10 kW/100 m2; and
kg) is shown in column 4, and its equivalent in CO2
road network, parking areas, and leisure spaces, 0.002 kW/
emissions (in kgCO2/kg) is included in column 5. The
m 2.
following columns include the total quantity of each
material (in tonnes) derived in each case study.
Street lighting The streets were lit with metal halide
Clearly, the most common material is aggregates, fol-
lamps of 150 W. The mean illuminance was 15 lux and the
lowed by concrete, stone and mortar. Cast iron and PVC
height of each luminaire was 8 m. The number of lumi-
must be highlighted due to their high embodied energy and
naires was calculated by the following formula:
carbon emissions rates.
N ¼ ðEm  SÞ=ðn  l  F  fc Þ ð3Þ The total number of construction work units, 459, was
where N is the number of projectors; Em is recommended divided into the following categories: (1) land preparation;
mean illuminance; S is the mean illuminated surface in m2 (2) earth-moving; (3) water supply network; (4) sewage
(l 9 a); n is number of lamps; F is the lumens per lamp network; (5) medium-voltage grid; (6) low-voltage grid;
(lm) or projector; l is the utilization factor or coefficient of (7) public lighting; (8) telecommunications network; (9)
beam utilization, C.B.U. (defined as the ratio of the lumens gas network; (10) pavement; (11) landscaping; (12) green
that reach the illuminated surface and the beam lumens), areas; (13) watering network; (14) street furniture; (15)
signs.
After calculating the CO2 emissions generated by the
work units in each of the previously mentioned categories,
4
According to the Circular of 14 October 2004 of the Directorate
General of Industry, Energy, and Mining of Spain regarding the
estimated electrical power loads and simultaneity coefficients in 6
The regulations applied were the Norma Técnica de Planificación
residential and industrial areas. BOJA 216. Tecnológica de Telefónica de España, S.A., NT.f1.003 and those in
5
The Cs coefficient is specified in official regulations. In Spain, this Construction Method n 434.012 of Canalizaciones Subterráneas
coefficient can be found in the ITC-BT-10 Technical Guidelines. (Underground Conduits).

123
 Table 8 Amount of major construction materials required for the urbanization of each case studied
Task Material Specific element Embodied CO2 emissions Quantity (tonnes)
energy by (kgCO2/kg)
unit (MJ/kg) URB-1 URB-2 URB-3 URB-4 URB-5 URB-6

Water supply Aggregates 0.1178 0.0066 7910.76 7845.83 1888.88 1884.76 1850.88 1732.14
Concrete Manhole 1.0578 0.0991 625.72 555.48 182.24 177.78 152.32 151.21
Cast iron Pipe 33.4560 2.6731 179.97 165.02 34.60 33.65 29.63 27.64
Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85

Cast iron Valve 32.8000 2.6195 49.92 46.79 6.45 10.67 9.44 8.91
Brick Manhole 4.5444 0.3408 56.04 42.57 3.64 2.78 2.35 2.14
Mortar 1.2144 0.1133 33.45 25.41 2.17 1.66 1.40 1.28
Galvanised steel Valve 41.7000 3.1500 13.54 10.29 0.88 0.68 0.57 0.52
Sewage network Aggregates 0.1178 0.0066 27,276.52 35,218.18 12,198.61 11,575.12 10,446.92 9815.59
Concrete Precast 1.0578 0.0991 1197.84 2002.91 379.08 425.53 411.59 362.27
PVC Pipe 80.3374 12.0331 104.56 120.05 33.02 30.11 27.62 26.55
Precast Pipe 1.3674 0.1218 85.61 85.61 54.24 54.24 54.24 54.24
Cast iron Valve 32.8000 2.6207 2.15 52.83 10.05 10.37 10.50 8.70
Steel Manhole 34.8766 2.7895 6.77 11.41 2.14 2.41 2.32 2.05
Medium-voltage grid Aggregates 0.1178 0.0066 2292.91 2292.91 2291.54 2291.54 2291.54 2291.54
Precast Manhole 2.3000 0.2200 14.28 14.28 23.53 23.53 23.53 23.53
PVC Pipe 80.3374 12.0331 5.65 5.65 5.49 5.49 5.49 5.49
Low-voltage grid Aggregates Trenches 0.1178 0.0066 4221.69 4153.65 1809.23 901.86 309.20 285.38
Precast Manhole 2.3000 0.2200 230.92 215.28 14.72 10.12 5.52 5.52
Cast iron valve 32.8000 2.6195 26.10 24.34 1.66 1.14 0.62 0.62
PVC Pipe 80.3374 12.0331 24.24 24.12 10.68 6.37 2.16 2.03
Aluminum Cable 43.4391 3.2144 11.27 11.21 4.96 1.47 1.00 0.94
Public lighting Aggregates Trenches 0.1178 0.0066 2526.65 2526.65 1810.15 1810.15 1728.32 1676.76
Polyethylene Pipe 77.3372 11.4209 10.13 10.13 6.91 6.91 6.68 6.48
Telecommunications Aggregates Trenches 0.1178 0.0066 3234.84 4934.77 1116.50 1140.94 1139.06 755.07
network Steel Manhole 35.3374 2.8250 55.90 76.42 37.21 33.57 29.01 19.89
Cement Trenches 3.7788 0.8327 55.65 65.06 25.28 25.14 24.96 19.83
Gas network Aggregates Trenches 0.1178 0.0066 3468.77 3468.77 783.01 823.89 652.99 651.74
Concrete Manhole 1.0578 0.0991 197.84 197.84 19.62 13.08 3.44 1.72
Polyethylene Pipe 77.3372 11.4209 5.49 5.49 1.48 1.39 0.85 0.94
Pavement Aggregates Pavement 0.1178 0.0066 25,463.32 25,477.37 18,646.92 18,646.92 17,136.84 16,383.99
Concrete Sidewalk 1.0578 0.0991 8563.35 8563.35 5186.00 5186.00 4931.50 4650.16
Stone Sidewalk 0.1800 0.0200 791.52 791.52 747.54 747.54 707.56 670.83
Mortar Sidewalk 1.2144 0.1133 726.76 726.76 355.90 355.90 324.96 305.67
Precast Sidewalk 2.3000 0.2200 700.61 700.61 318.00 318.00 283.69 266.53
79

123
80 Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85

4.07

8.57
1.63

9.11
82.99
100.05

567.55
184.41

649.34
12,144.97
5058.47

59,029.04
the total emissions were then measured for each of the six

Sources: Inventory of Carbon and Energy (Hammond and Jones 2011), database of the Instituto de Tecnologı́a de la Construcción (ITEC 2012), Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)
URB-6
housing profiles (see Fig. 1). Graph 4 shows the following
results,78: URB-1 (Single-family detached houses), 73.45
kgCO2/m2; URB-2 (Single-family semi-detached houses),
86.42 kgCO2/m2; URB-3 (eight 5-floor high-rise apartment
4.33
12,144.97
5058.47

8.57
1.63

9.11
61,424.29
82.99
104.21

567.55
184.41

649.34
buildings), 42.10 kgCO2/m2; URB-4 (four 10-floor high-
URB-5

rise apartment buildings), 40.18 kgCO2/m2; URB-5 (two

20-floor high-rise apartment buildings), 37.30 kgCO2/m2;
and URB-6 (one 40-floor high-rise apartment building),

82.99
112.53

567.55
184.41

649.34
4.86
12,144.97
5058.47

8.57
1.63

9.11
65,385.12
35.82 kgCO2/m2.
URB-4

Figure 7 shows the CO2 emissions (kgCO2/m2) for the

construction work unit categories of the housing develop-
ment profiles.
4.86

8.57
1.63

88.56
10.54
112.53

567.55
184.41

654.50
12,144.97
5058.47

66,848.91
For example, in the case of URB-3, the profile with eight
URB-3

5-floor apartment buildings, it was found that the sewage

network, paving, and landscaping and treatment of green
areas were responsible for 71.5 % of the emissions. Paving
4255.32
2342.43

2.54
0.83

2.69
10.70

82.79

44.28

107,816.20
149.74

296.90

159.43

accounted for the largest percentage of emissions (42.2 %).9

URB-2

Regarding the impact of the construction materials, the

following materials were the source of 66.05 % of the
Quantity (tonnes)

emissions: asphalt (17.32 %); concrete (22.86 %); PVC

pipes in the sewage network (13.17 %); and the cast-iron
2.54
0.83

2.69
10.70

82.79

44.28
164.66

296.90

159.43
4255.32
2342.43

97,533.35

pipe fittings in the water supply system (12.7 %).

URB-1

Moreover, 12.5 % of emissions were due to the fuel

consumed by the machinery used in the urbanization pro-
cess. As in the building construction, concrete was the
CO2 emissions

source of most of the emissions. For this reason, policies

(kgCO2/kg)

conducive to reducing environmental impact should con-

0.0066
0.8327
0.0066
0.0991
2.6600
0.2200
2.8250
0.0922
0.0066
0.0991
2.6195

sider this important factor in the construction phase of

urban planning (see Fig. 8).
This section summarizes the design of supply networks
and services of each of the six housing development
unit (MJ/kg)
Embodied
energy by

alternatives in our sample. Table 8 lists the major materials

35.3374

32.8000
0.1178
3.7788
0.1178
1.0578
7.1300
2.3000

3.0712
0.1178
1.0578

involved in each case study. The carbon emission levels

(by work unit) were compared. The following section
presents the results for the profiles, putting forth possible
Specific element

measures for reducing these emissions.

Pavement

Pavement
Pavement
Pavement
Pavement
Pavement
Pavement
Trenches
Manhole
Valve

Results

After calculating the emissions of each of the housing

profiles and of the urbanization process, we proceeded to
Ceramic paver
Aggregates

Aggregates

obtain the total emissions as the sum of the emissions from

Cast iron
Concrete

Concrete
Bitumen
Material

Cement

Precast

Wood
Steel

7
The values per m2 were obtained by dividing the total emissions
into 100,000 m2, the total surface area of the housing development.
8
These values do not include the emissions from the development of
Table 8 continued

Watering network

the inner section of the land plot.

9
In the case of the detached and semi-detached housing profiles
Green areas

where the road surface is greater, the sources of most emissions are
the water supply network (13.56%), the sewage network (22.01%),
Total
Task

and the pavement (36.45%). These values are for the detached
housing profile.

123
Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85 81

Fig. 7 CO2 emissions in kgCO2/m2 for the housing development profiles

Fig. 8 Distribution of CO2

emissions (kgCO2/m2) in the
URB-3 profile

the buildings in each housing profile, as well as the emis- value, to be used as a basis of comparison for the other
sions from the urbanization process for each of the profiles. options. The last row of Table 9 shows the percentages of
These data are given in Table 9. The profile that generated the other housing profiles in relation to URB-3, which as
the smallest environmental impact is URB-3 with nearly the reference, took on a value of 0.
the same value as URB-4. In view of these results, the As shown in Fig. 3, the structure and foundation were
5-floor apartment building (URB-3) became the reference responsible for the highest levels of CO2 emissions. Within

123
82 Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85

Table 9 Total emissions for the housing development profiles in tCO2

URB-1 URB-2 URB-3 URB-4 URB-5 URB-6

Housing profile Detached Semi-detached Block 5 Block 10 Block 20 Block 40

Number of buildings 225 65.00 8 4 2 1
Building surface (m2) 307.00 1144.00 7592.00 15,185.00 30,369.00 60,739.00
2
(CO2 kg/m ) 402.70 365.80 363.60 376.10 394.50 461.40
Building construction emissions (tCO2) 27,849.60 27,208.90 22,083.1 22,838.9 23,956.8 28,020.30
Civil engineering works (tCO2) 7345.10 8642.40 4210.30 4017.70 3730.30 3582.40
Total emissions (tCO2) 35,194.70 35,851.20 26,293.40 26,856.60 27,687.10 31,602.70
% in regards to the optimum 33.85 % 36.35 % 0.00 % 2.14 % 5.30 % 20.19 %

the same housing type, the 40-floor apartment building responsible for approximately 21 % of all emissions. When
generated considerably more emissions than the 5-floor the 21 % from the steel was added to this percentage, then
apartment building. In our case study, this difference was concrete and steel were found to generate more than one-
approximately 20 % greater (see Table 9). third of all CO2 emissions.
As can be observed, URB-3 with its 5-floor apartment As previously mentioned, these results indicate that
buildings was the profile with the least impact. In fact, the efforts to reduce the environmental impact of construction
profiles with apartment buildings were found to be more materials should encourage the use of cement, steel, and
environmentally friendly than the detached and semi-de- asphalt mixes with low levels of CO2 emissions. This
tached profiles. More specifically, the URB-3 profile had research analyzed a low-density urban area typical of the
33.85 % fewer emissions than the detached profile (URB-1) context in Spain. The building potential of the case study
and had 36.35 % fewer emissions than the URB-2 profile. was set at 0.5 m2/m2 since this is a representative value, as
There were no significant differences among apartment reflected in urban development plans in Spain. Higher-
building profiles URB-3, URB-4, and URB-5. Only in the density urban areas could logically require higher apart-
case of the 40-floor building did the emissions increase ment buildings with more floors and with more resistant
almost 20 %. With a view to proposing actions to reduce foundations and structure. This would involve a greater
the environmental actions of building construction, Fig. 9 consumption of steel and concrete, and would thus produce
shows the emissions percentages generated by the materi- a higher environmental impact.
als used in the building construction and urbanization Although this research is a case study, the relevant
processes for the URB-3 housing profile. variables are urban density and the construction materials
When the building construction and urbanization pro- and systems characteristic of the zone. If the combination
cesses were both considered, it was found that concrete was of these assumptions were modified, the results in Table 9

Fig. 9 Emissions from

materials used in building
construction and urbanization in
the URB-3 profile

123
Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85 83

would also be different. Nevertheless, it is highly probable of high environmental impact materials involved in
that certain tendencies would also be reflected in the new foundations and structures is underlined in the results
results, such as the weight derived from the use of signif- obtained.
icant amounts of materials with a high environmental Because the materials derived from urbanization tasks
impact (e.g., cement, steel, asphalt, etc.) as opposed to have a considerable effect on the total emissions involved,
other environmentally friendly materials such as wood and this should be taken into account when assessing envi-
stone. ronmental impact of buildings. The process followed in this
research study can be used as a methodology that allows a
project designer to obtain the housing development profile
Conclusions with the least environmental impact in terms of CO2
emissions produced during the project design stage and
Building type and urban layout have an effect on the construction stage of buildings.
material consumption at construction stage and therefore in In regards to future research, the authors are currently
the amount of embodied energy and the environmental working to apply this methodology in another country,
impact of buildings. This study has evaluated the envi- where the most commonly used construction materials are
ronmental impact of urban planning models resulting from different and the urban planning regulations are conducive
different building construction profiles. The impact of to other solutions. Also, future research should extend this
materials involved in supply networks and services was work and include emissions due to the operation phase of
also considered. The methodology of LCA was used, and the building.
the level of CO2 emissions was specified for the con- The results presented here clearly indicate that future
struction stage of each alternative. work should take into account the benefits derived from
The study features the following highlights: construction materials with a low environmental impact.
– The design of different case studies that, while meeting Acknowledgments This project was financed by a research contract
the urban normative, reflect different urban layout N C-3513 with Construcciones Otero S.A. and the Fundación General
alternatives. UGR-Empresa [University Business Foundation] of the University of
– Estimation of building materials involved in each Granada.
solution. Foundations and structure were calculated
with specific software.
– Use of LCA for the estimation of embodied energy and Appendix A
carbon emissions of building materials. This assess-
ment was done in the construction stage. The networks were calculated with Cype Instalaciones
Urbanas (CYPE Ingenieros S.A., 2012), the CYPE com-
The results showed that the materials that are the source puter application for architecture, engineering, and con-
of most emissions were related to the activities carried out struction. his computer program obtains the head loss
to construct the foundations, frame elements, and siding of between two nodes of the same branch with the Darcy–
the buildings on the one hand, and the sewage network, Weisbach formula (A.1.):
paving, and landscape work in the housing development.
8  L  Q2
The work units that include cement were found to be hp ¼ f  ðA:1:Þ
responsible for a high level of embodied energy and of the p2  G  D5
environmental impact generated by the construction pro- where,
cess. In this study, the percentages of emissions were 20 % hp: head loss (m.w.c10).
for concrete and 7 % for mortar. The material with the L: length of pipe or duct (m).
second highest percentage of emissions was steel (18.2 %). Q: volume flow (m3/s).
The results obtained confirm that urban layout and g: acceleration of gravity (m/s2).
building type bear an impact on total embodied energy and D: hydraulic diameter of the pipe or duct (m).
carbon emissions at the construction stage. Generally The factor f is the function of the Reynolds number (Re)
speaking, the 5-floor and 10-floor housing profiles were and the relative roughness (e/D). In the case of water, the
found to have a lower impact than developments with transition values between the laminar and turbulent flow
detached houses. The detached housing profile produced regimes for the Reynolds number range from 2000 to 4000.
an increase in emissions due to a major consumption of They can be calculated as follows (A.2.):
materials involved in walls and sidings. In this profile,
there are more m2 of façade as well as greater volumes of
10
earth and mastic as the result of road surfaces. The effect m.w.c: meter water column.

123
84 Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85

mD Cuéllar-Franca RM, Azapagic A (2012) Environmental impacts of the

Re ¼ ðA:2:Þ UK residential sector: life cycle assessment of houses. Build
t Environ 54:86–99. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.02.005
where, CYPE Ingenieros SA (2012) CYPECAD
m: flow rate in the pipe or duct (m/s). Davila CC, Reinhart C (2013) Urban energy lifecycle: an analytical
framework to evaluate the embodied energy use of urban
D: hydraulic diameter of the pipe or duct (m). developments. In: Proceedings of BS2013: 13th Conference of
t: kinematic viscosity of the fluid in the pipe or duct. International Building Performance Simulation Association,
For values of Re lower than the turbulence threshold, the Chambéry, France, August 26–28. pp 1280–1287
program uses the Hagen–Poiseuille equation to obtain the Ding GKC (2004) The development of a multi-criteria approach for
the measurement of sustainable performance for built projects
friction factor for the laminar flow (A.3.): and facilities. University of Technology, Sydney
64 European Committee for Standardization (2006a) EN ISO 10040.
f ¼ ðA:3:Þ Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles
Re and framework
The Colebrook–White equation is used for the turbulent European Committee for Standardization (2006b) EN ISO 14044.
Environmental management life cycle assessment requirements
regime (A.4.): and guidelines
  European Committee for Standardization (2008) CEN/TC 350.
1 e 2:51
pffiffiffi ¼ 2 log þ pffiffiffi ðA:4:Þ Sustainability of construction works—assessment of build-
f 3:7D Re f ings—part 2: framework for the assessment of environmental
performance
which is iterated in order to reach a value of f because of its European Parliament (2010) Directive 2010/31/EU of the European
implicit nature, and where: Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy
f: friction factor. performance of buildings
e: absolute roughness of the material (m). European Parliament (2012) Directive 2012/27/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy
D: diameter of the pipe or duct (m). efficiency
Re: Reynolds number. González MJ, Garcı́a Navarro J (2006) Assessment of the decrease of
The following parameters are assumed: CO2 emissions in the construction field through the selection of
materials: practical case study of three houses of low environ-
• Kinematic viscosity of the fluid: 1.15e-6 m2/s. mental impact. Build Environ 41:902–909. doi:10.1016/j.
• Reynolds number for the laminar-turbulent transition: buildenv.2005.04.006
Guinée J, Hiejungs R, Huppes G (2011) Life Cycle Assessment: past,
2500
Present, and Future. Environ Sci 45:90–96
However, there is no guarantee that for the selected Hammond G, Jones C (2011) Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE)
version 2.0
threshold value of the Reynolds number for the laminar- ITEC (2012) ITEC. http://www.itec.es/home/index.asp
turbulent transition (Re = 2500), the friction factor Jeong Y-S, Lee S-E, Huh J-H (2012) Estimation of CO2 emission of
obtained with the Hagen–Poiseuille equation will be equal apartment buildings due to major construction materials in the
to that obtained with the Colebrook–White equation. Republic of Korea. Energy Build 49:437–442. doi:10.1016/j.
enbuild.2012.02.041
Consequently, the head loss is calculated in a first iter- Mercader MP, de Arellano Ramı́rez, Olivares M (2012) Modelo de
ation with the Colebrook–White equation. If this iteration cuantificación de las emisiones de CO2 producidas en edificación
provides a flow value in the laminar zone, it is subse- derivadas de los recursos materiales consumidos en su ejecución.
quently calculated with the Hagen–Poiseuille equation. If Inf la Construcción 64:401–414. doi:10.3989/ic.10.082
Ministerio de Fomento (2003) Código Técnico de la Edificación
the Hagen–Poiseuille equation gives a result in the turbu- Código Técnico de la Edificación
lent zone, the result of the Colebrook–White equation is Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Urbanismo (1978) Real Decreto
then regarded as the definitive value. 2159/1978, de 23 de junio, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento
de Planeamiento para el Desarrollo y Aplicación de la Ley sobre
Régimen del Suelo y Ordenación Urbana
Ministerio de Vivienda. (2008) Real Decreto Legislativo 2/2008, de
20 de junio, por el que se aprueba el Texto Refundido de la Ley
de Suelo
References Mithraratne N, Vale B (2004) Life cycle analysis model for New
Zealand houses. Build Environ 39:483–492. doi:10.1016/j.
Asif M, Muneer T, Kelley R (2007) Life cycle assessment: a case buildenv.2003.09.008
study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Build Environ Ordóñez J, Modi V (2011) Optimizing CO2 emissions from heating
42:1391–1394. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.11.023 and cooling and from the materials used in residential buildings,
Bardhan S (2011) Embodied energy analysis of multi-storied residen- depending on their geometric characteristics. Build Environ
tial buildings in urban India. Energy Sustain 143:411–421. 46:2161–2169. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.04.030
doi:10.2495/ESUS110351 Paulsen JS, Sposto RM (2013) A life cycle energy analysis of social
Cabeza LF, Barreneche C, Miró L et al (2013) Low carbon and low housing in Brazil: case study for the program ‘‘MY HOUSE MY
embodied energy materials in buildings: a review. Renew LIFE’’. Energy Build 57:95–102. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.11.
Sustain Energy Rev 23:536–542. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.017 014

123
Sustain Sci (2017) 12:65–85 85

Perkins A, Hamnett S, Pullen S et al (2009) Transport, housing and Varun Sharma A, Shree V, Nautiyal H (2012) Life cycle environ-
urban form: the life cycle energy consumption and emissions of mental assessment of an educational building in Northern India:
city centre apartments compared with suburban dwellings. Urban a case study. Sustain Cities Soc 4:22–28. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2012.
Policy Res 27:377–396. doi:10.1080/08111140903308859 03.002
Peuportier B, Thiers S, Guiavarch A (2013) Eco-design of buildings Waldron D, Jones P, Lannon S, et al (2013) Embodied energy and
using thermal simulation and life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod operational energy: case studies comparing different urban
39:73–78. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.041 layouts. In: Proceedings of BS2013: 13th Conference of
Porhin M, Adriana E (2013) Comparative analysis of environmental International Building Performance Simulation Association,
performance of building materials towards sustainable construc- Chambéry, France, August 26–28. pp 1264–1271
tion.Chemical Engineering Transactions. 35:1291–1296. doi: Wang W, Rivard H, Zmeureanu R (2006) Floor shape optimization
10.3303/CET1335215 for green building design. Adv Eng Informatics 20:363–378.
Rickwood P, Glazebrook G, Searle G (2008) Urban structure and doi:10.1016/j.aei.2006.07.001
energy—a review. Urban Policy Res 26:57–81. doi:10.1080/ Wen TJ, Siong HC, Noor ZZ (2014) Assessment of embodied energy
08111140701629886 and global warming potential of building construction using life
Singh A, Berghorn G, Joshi S, Syal M (2011) Review of life-cycle cycle analysis approach: case studies of residential buildings in
assessment applications in building construction. J Arch Eng Iskandar Malaysia. Energy Build 93:295–302. doi:10.1016/j.
17:15–23 enbuild.2014.12.002
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (1993) Guide- World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our
lines for life-cycle assessment: a ‘‘code of practice’’ common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Solı́s-Guzmán J, Marrero M, Ramı́rez-de-Arellano A (2013) Method- Zabalza Bribián I, Aranda Usón A, Scarpellini S (2009) Life cycle
ology for determining the ecological footprint of the construction assessment in buildings: state-of-the-art and simplified LCA
of residential buildings in Andalusia (Spain). Ecol Indic methodology as a complement for building certification. Build
25:239–249. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.008 Environ 44:2510–2520. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.05.001
Témez J (1991) Extended and Improved Rational Method.Highways
Administration of Spain. In: XXIV Conference. Madrid

123